ORDER A.S. Bopanna J.—The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to restore and provide water connection to the schedule premises where the petitioner is running his hotel business in the name and style Radhika Hotel'. The petitioner has also questioned the endorsement dated 22.01.2010 issued by the Revenue Officer, Davanagere Mahanagara Palike, which is impugned at Annexure-J to the petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the petition papers. Respondent No. 3 though served is unrepresented. 2. The brief facts are that admittedly, the petition schedule premises bearing Nos. 252/1 and 252/2 measuring 14 x 100 sq.ft. situate at Ward No. 5, 7th division, P.B. Road, Davanagere, belongs to respondent No. 3. The petitioner herein contends that he has taken the premises under a rental agreement and is running the hotel business in the said premises. The petitioner claims that he has been paying rents regularly to the owner of the premises and is running his business therein. 3. Despite the said position, respondent Nos. 1 and. 2 i.e., Maharagara Palike, Davanagere, have repeatedly interfered with the business being carried on by the petitioner and have also issued the impugned endorsement dated 22.01.2010 indicating that respondent No. 3 who is the owner of the premises has not paid the property tax in respect of the schedule premises under the Self Assessment Scheme for the year 2006-07 upto 2009-10 and therefore the said taxes has to be paid by tenant/petitioner who is in occupation of the premises. Therefore, it was made clear that due to the arrears remaining unpaid, the petitioner would not be entitled to water supply to the premises. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same is before this Court. 4. At the first instance, when the petition had come up before this Court on 26,03.2010, this Court had granted the interim order, subject to the condition that the petitioner would deposit 75% of the amount as quantified in the demand notice, which is impugned at Annexure-N. It was also made clear that since the petitioner is a tenant, the amount ordered to be deposited being the property tax, if it is ultimately found to be due, the petitioner would be entitled to adjust the same towards the rents payable to the third respondent i.e., the owner of the building. It was only for considering the version of respondent No. 3, notice had been issued by this Court. As indicated above, the respondent No. 3 has not chosen to appear and oppose the petition. 5. In the light of the above said circumstance, it would be clear that respondent No. 3 having not appeared and not having contended that the property tax has been paid, it would have to be accepted that the claim of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the property tax has not been paid by the owner of the building is correct. Even though the said taxes have not been paid, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would not be entitled to disrupt the water supply, but would be entitled to claim the same from the petitioner and recover the said amount. In each circumstance, it is made clear that the petitioner in order to enjoy the benefit of the water supply and to continue in the premises would have to pay the arrears of taxes as demanded by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and deduct the same from the rents which is payable to respondent No. 3. 6. In that view of the matter, the amount already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 towards the arrears due. Thereafter the balance arrears of the property taxes shall be paid by the petitioner and the petitioner would be entitled to deduct the same from the rents payable to respondent No. 3. In that view of the matter, I see no reason to quash the endorsement dated 22,01.2010. However, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall not disrupt the water supply to the premises but shall recover the amount from the petitioner subject to the observations made hereinabove. if the petitioner fails to pay the amount, appropriate action shall be taken. 7. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.